Religion will be a non-entity in 25 years - Krauss (paradise, Mormonism, atheism)

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

...

I believe it's the Abrahamic religions which will see huge declines in the next generation or two - most particularly those of a fundamentalist bent. The sooner access to the net is cheap and made available to everyone, the sooner this will happen....

I would like to think ALL Abrahamic religions will see those declines, but currently I see that applying only to the Jewish faith (which has had a huge decline in religious Jews, although many see themselves as cultural ones), and the Christian faith.

I suspect, mostly due to the lack of education, that the Islam will continue to grow for the time being. Demographics plays into that as well.

I don't see a total avoidance of some sort of spiritual life though. Buddhism has and will continue to have an increasing interest outside of Asia, as well as one of the so called Pagan spiritual modalities. That does not mean a replacement of one woo-woo god with another (Thor will not be replacing Yahweh). An increasing spiritual connection with nature may finally get us a reversal of the huge negative impacts we as humans are on our environment.

Yes, the times they are a changing, and they are interesting.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

The psychological and evolutionary foundations of religion and the way it relates to communalism, culture, and making meaning in human lives.

There is no absolutes that require a faith in any religion to make meaning in human lives. Where to you get that perspective from? There is some indication does correlate the relation of religion and culture. but so what? A cultural Jew does not have to be religious at all. Granted, his culture may stem from old religious practices, but for him to maintain his culture does not require him to keep those practices alive at all.

This is the way it's characterized by hobbyist atheists on the internet, but this just proves my point.

Edison was a hobbist at one point. That doesn't mean his findings were not relevant nor correct, does it? But nice try at attempting to create the aura of expertise over others.

And the percentage is still below 1/3 of the population.

Referencing of course tnose under 35 years of age. Their cohort will grow, those that still consider themselves religious are primarily older, and for obvious reasons, that cohort will diminish.

The fact that it's cognitively innate, it demonstrably improves crisis handling, and it's a fundamental part of most cultures, it's not really a system for accounting for unexplained natural phenomena, in addition to others.

How does religion improve crisis handling? At best it relies on a mythical entity whose existence is only inside the perception of that person who accepts the rote knowledge of their faith. There is not much cognitive effort put into that at all. So what if religion is part of most cultures?

And yes, it developed to a significant extent due to the inability of the ancients being able to explain natural phenomena. That holds true in the South Pacific, in the Caribbean, the ancient Middle East, the woods of present day Germany, the fjords of Norway or on the Haida Gwaii.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by cupper3

There is no absolutes that require a faith in any religion to make meaning in human lives. Where to you get that perspective from?

I don't mean make any meaning at all. What I'm talking about is turning observations and experiences into meaningful events. Interpreting things as having meaning. Everything that happens to us is interpreted in one way or another, and people are more happy and comfortable when there is meaning in their lives. That requires reading meaning into their experiences. In scholarship we refer to that kind of interpretive practice as making meaning.

Originally Posted by cupper3

There is some indication does correlate the relation of religion and culture. but so what? A cultural Jew does not have to be religious at all.

I know multiple Jewish atheists who wear kipas, observe every last sentence of every last ritual, and pray multiple times a day. You vastly underestimate the significance and the reach of culture.

Originally Posted by cupper3

Granted, his culture may stem from old religious practices, but for him to maintain his culture does not require him to keep those practices alive at all.

It does not require it, but you would be surprised how many keep them alive anyway. Again, you underestimate how integral culture is.

Originally Posted by cupper3

Edison was a hobbist at one point. That doesn't mean his findings were not relevant nor correct, does it? But nice try at attempting to create the aura of expertise over others.

The Edison example is completely irrelevant. Discovering a carbon filament lasts a lot longer than others is quite a bit distinct from critiquing religion from an informed and insightful perspective. Hobbyist atheists very rarely read the scholarship or understand the phenomena they're assessing, as has already been shown in the example of Krauss. One could also point to the grotesquely uninformed positions of Harris or Dawkins. They don't know much at all about the sociology or psychology of religion, but their opinions get a lot of circulation because they serve certain atheistic dogmas.

Originally Posted by cupper3

Referencing of course tnose under 35 years of age.

Yes, it's even lower as you get older.

Originally Posted by cupper3

Their cohort will grow, those that still consider themselves religious are primarily older, and for obvious reasons, that cohort will diminish.

But a lot of people adopt less atheistic perspectives as they age. You're making an assumption that ignores the actual data. Edison didn't do that very often.

Originally Posted by cupper3

How does religion improve crisis handling?

It aids in finding meaning in different kinds of crises, whatever the precise nature of that meaning is. It doesn't even really have to do with a deity. It just helps people find different perspectives and keep looking until they find a reason that makes them go through the stages more efficiently.

Originally Posted by cupper3

At best it relies on a mythical entity whose existence is only inside the perception of that person who accepts the rote knowledge of their faith.

Again you're making assumptions based on your uninformed notion of what religion is.

Originally Posted by cupper3

There is not much cognitive effort put into that at all.

Actually there's a great deal of cognitive effort.

Originally Posted by cupper3

So what if religion is part of most cultures?

You underestimate how foundational culture can be to worldviews and identity.

Originally Posted by cupper3

And yes, it developed to a significant extent due to the inability of the ancients being able to explain natural phenomena.

That was certainly a factor in ancient times. Not so much anymore.

Originally Posted by cupper3

That holds true in the South Pacific, in the Caribbean, the ancient Middle East, the woods of present day Germany, the fjords of Norway or on the Haida Gwaii.

Relevance?

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by mordant

But WHY does a religious or theistic worldview work to make them happier?

Because it helps them find meaning in the moment and even in their suffering, whether or not that meaning is tied to a deity. Planning for the future brings stress, but most religions help to emphasize the here and now, which helps people enjoy their lives. It also gives them a support system, a culture, a group identity, and even an economic safety net. There are lots of reasons. The reasons are hard to see, though, when people just bark about placating sky gods. Religion is so much more than that, and if one refuses to see that, they're always going to be way off base and religious people are never going to take them seriously.

Originally Posted by mordant

And why might it quit working?

Any one of a number of reasons, but I know plenty of atheists who still actively participate in religious life because it makes them happy.

Originally Posted by mordant

It has been my experience that it's possible to be happier (for many popular definitions of "happier") when ignorant about or unaware of certain aspects of reality, but this tends to create leaky abstractions that rupture when they bump up against how reality actually works.

And that's a perspective that reduces and dichotomizes religion for the sake of making you more comfortable in your own worldview. It makes you happy because you remain ignorant about or unaware of certain aspects of reality. It sure would be convenient if religion were just the brittle and superfluous supernatural overlay that you seem to think it is, but that's not how reality works. Are you going to maintain your cognitive dissonance to protect your worldview, or are you going to try to understand reality?

Originally Posted by mordant

One of the things my religion inculcated in me was a deep suspicion of rational thought and a high regard for blind faith. One of the things science inculcates is a deep suspicion of blind faith and a high regard for rational thought.

And when you impose the fundamentalistic and discrete interpretive lens you had as a youth upon all religion, you vastly misunderstand and misrepresent it.

Originally Posted by mordant

It seems likely to me, therefore, that an increase in regard for science tends to weaken confidence in the promises and value propositions of religion. Certainly that has been my experience and the experience of many of us here.

I'm not contesting that.

Originally Posted by mordant

We have never before seen the kind of widespread literacy, quality education, and general awareness of scientific theories, that we've seen come into play in the last century; nor have we seen anything like the kid of scientific and technological progress that we've seen in even the past 50 years.

I would not extrapolate the future of religion based on its past millennia of easy hegemony, when there is that much of a sea change going on. Just as you would not extrapolate it based on the assumption that the secularization trends of the past 50 years will continue apace forever.

So are you agreeing with the good doctor's prophecy or not? If we can't extrapolate from the trends of the past, on what grounds do you think his case is made?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

And when you impose the fundamentalistic and discrete interpretive lens you had as a youth upon all religion, you vastly misunderstand and misrepresent it.

Doubtless there is some truth in that. I expect to soon be in contact with a liberal church on account of the social benefits my wife feels it offers her, despite her unbelief. So I'm not unaware that many precincts of religion knock the worst of the rough edges off what has been my personal past experience of it. Perhaps even with a tolerable signal-to-noise ratio, who knows. That doesn't change my view that liberal religion is simply part of a general evolution away from the ideological purism that once prevailed -- the kind where people died for thinking outside the box.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

So are you agreeing with the good doctor's prophecy or not? If we can't extrapolate from the trends of the past, on what grounds do you think his case is made?

I've already said, earlier in this thread, that I don't agree with his timeline. I would expand it to perhaps as much as a thousand years, if he literally means religion being nothing but a quaint historical footnote. I would not count even fundamentalism out of the running, for another 2 or 3 generations at a minimum, and perhaps as many as 8 or 10.

While I believe that religion (fundamentalism in particular) is poised over thin air, rather like Wylie Coyote not realizing he's run past the end of the cliff, I also don't forget the rest of the Road Runner story line where he keeps running off the cliff over and over and never gives up. And is never particularly educated by his repeated splats at the bottom.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by mordant

Doubtless there is some truth in that. I expect to soon be in contact with a liberal church on account of the social benefits my wife feels it offers her, despite her unbelief. So I'm not unaware that many precincts of religion knock the worst of the rough edges off what has been my personal past experience of it. Perhaps even with a tolerable signal-to-noise ratio, who knows.

I hope you're able to find something that helps.

Originally Posted by mordant

That doesn't change my view that liberal religion is simply part of a general evolution away from the ideological purism that once prevailed -- the kind where people died for thinking outside the box.

People talk about that kind of religion the way old people talk about the good old days when everyone had integrity and the all was right with the world. It's a fabrication. Certain sub-cultures have produced value in that kind of reconstruction of the past, but liberal views on religion have always existed and have always been a cultural force. The witch burnings are the outliers.

Originally Posted by mordant

I've already said, earlier in this thread, that I don't agree with his timeline. I would expand it to perhaps as much as a thousand years, if he literally means religion being nothing but a quaint historical footnote. I would not count even fundamentalism out of the running, for another 2 or 3 generations at a minimum, and perhaps as many as 8 or 10.

While I believe that religion (fundamentalism in particular) is poised over thin air, rather like Wylie Coyote not realizing he's run past the end of the cliff, I also don't forget the rest of the Road Runner story line where he keeps running off the cliff over and over and never gives up. And is never particularly educated by his repeated splats at the bottom.

That's certainly a more reasonable position than Krauss', but I'm doubtful that anyone here will be around at that point to check the score.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Here is the article:

Atheist scientist claims religion will be gone in a generation. Is he right? - CSMonitor.com

Of course, not all will agree, but it is telling that the upcoming generation is rejecting any kind of religion more and more, and embracing secularism, rationality and human driven ethics.

From the article:

Some 25 years ago, only 5 percent of Americans identified as non-religious, or not affiliated with a religious group. Today, that figure is around 20 percent or more in the general population, according to Pew Research Center polling. Among the 18-25 age group, the demographic Krauss refers to in his talk, over 30 percent identify as non-religious.

Many of us think this is a good thing.

Leave it to the CM to come up with something like this. Although I will not be here to find out, in 25 years and if I am, I won't have a clue what we are talking about, but I do not see religion being gone ever, it will always be with us in some form. Certainly 25 years will not see it disappear. We all know many religions are losing members but many young people are attending non denominational churches, not opting out of religion altogether. Atheists would love to have us believe this. Remember 25 years is a very short time. A lot would have to change to make religion a dead belief that quickly.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by lucky4life

Where I live in Seattle, I would say less than half of people under 40 are religious, But if one drives over to the other side of the state, religion is still pretty big. People by nature are sheep. When something becomes the standard, if doesn't take long for people to jump on it to avoid being alienated. There are kids in this part f the country that ultimately drop religion to avoid being different. It will take a while for this to spread into other parts of the country, but by the end of this century religion won't be the norm. The people that choose to still be religious that will be tomorrows seniors, will be far more open to the idea on other people not sharing their beliefs. When this happens, it won't be taboo to abandon the faith one was raised in like it still somewhat is now.

Also, the amount of information readily available to us through the Internet, allows even the most backwoods people to be exposed to information that makes the concept of organized religion look silly, if one is of average intelligence.

There is a difference between religion and being religious. People can be believers but not involved in any defined religion. That doesn't mean religion is or will be gone in the foreseeable future. It might be gone in the way we know it today.

Let me add, are you saying people who are religious are less intelligent than those who do not believe in a spiritual being? What a self righteous statement, and what a misgiven belief!!!!

[travric]

Whoa..sure looks like Mr. Krause is stoking a fire there. Thing is I certainly don't object to him pronouncing an opinion but I'm a bit surprised in his interest in seeing religion and its study gone from human civilization. Of course I see his reasons from his scientific, rational perspective. Kind of ironic in a way that while he focuses his work on the vast expanse of the cosmos and trying to discover and make some sense of its physicality he spends his important time in a narrowed box seeking to eradicate a particular part of human existence. I know he'd relish religion's destruction but his forte is equations and assessing mathematical constructions. He's frankly mucking about in an area that has absolutely nothing to do with science. He should leave the worry of 'In nomine et patris et fili' etc etc etc to those who care about it more than him. Anyway I have to say I've read some of his books. Smart guy....but only in some areas!...;-)...

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

This is the way it's characterized by hobbyist atheists on the internet, but this just proves my point.

There's no such thing as a "hobbyist" atheist. An atheist is an atheist. Calling them a "hobbyist" is essentially accusing atheists of only being such because it's fun, but sooner or later, they'll all end up back at church kissing the carpet to placate some fictitious deity or another. That's a complete crock, little more than an ad hominem character assassination.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

Because it helps them find meaning in the moment and even in their suffering, whether or not that meaning is tied to a deity.

Really? Well, gee, I just spent the last 10 days in horrific pain because, for whatever stupid reason, the meds I normally take just weren't working. Today is the first day that I've felt halfway decent. And I'll tell you something - THIS "hobbyist" atheist never once, no, not one single time, lifted my eyes to the sky and tried to find meaning for my suffering by calling upon nonsensical supernatural spirits, gods, or religious rituals.

As someone who exists in almost perpetual chronic pain, the fact that I am an atheist is liberating. It means I can merely accept my pain as just a bad hand, a lousy roll of the dice. I don't have anyone or anything to shake my fist at and shout "WHY?" What is ... simply is, and THAT has made accepting my lot in life a hell of a lot easier than if I laid in bed every painful day wondering what I've done to deserve this or being angry that some moronic supernatural entity callously destroyed my life to set some kind of example or to help someone ELSE learn a lesson. No, I don't have to sit around wracking my brain for a "meaning" to my suffering because there isn't one.

Yeah, I get the fact that humans often seek meaning for just about every silly thing that happens to us, but that's just pareidolia of a different sort. It's akin to seeing a cloud kinda-sorta shaped like a bunny rabbit and concluding that the cloud really IS a bunny rabbit.

Now, if I can reject "meaning" in suffering, that means others can too, and I have little doubt that, as competing views begin challenging religion, an ever increasing number of people will begin to realize just how useless and powerless religion actually is. I believe there will always be little sects and pockets of primitivism in the world, but I have no reason to think that religion will gradually fade into irrelevancy over some unknown period of time.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

It also gives them a support system, a culture, a group identity, and even an economic safety net.

Uh huh ... so does a street gang. Which is to say that other organizations, clubs, and support groups can take the place of religion as a means of finding that sense of belonging most of us seek. It's a shame that groups of friends cannot act in this fashion, but rarely does that seem to be the case after adolescence.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

The reasons are hard to see, though, when people just bark about placating sky gods. Religion is so much more than that, and if one refuses to see that, they're always going to be way off base and religious people are never going to take them seriously.

Placating sky gods is the primary reason why religion exists. Everything else is a byproduct. The vast majority of people involved with religion placate one sky god or another, and that sense of entitled absolutism derived from having a sky god on their side is what causes a lot of atheists to figuratively want to projectile-vomit.

The bottom line here is that religion offers absolutely NOTHING that can't be found in the secular world - aside from placating sky gods and rigidly conforming to an ancient holy book. Get rid of those two things and you could still enjoy all of the secondary and tertiary benefits of religion - without the religion. However, I'm willing to bet that any church that suddenly announced there would be no more god-worship and holy book reading would lose 99% of its membership pretty damn fast. And that says to me that placating those sky gods is what is most important by far - not the sense of community or other 'accidental' benefits of religion.

Hence ... why atheists tend to ... 'ahem' ... "bark" about placating sky gods. THAT is the major issue we have with religion, not that they bake cookies, go on retreats, hang out together, or sing in the choir. It is the sky god and holy book issue that causes all of the strife, division, hatred, bigotry, violence, prejudice, and this burning need to make everyone conform to their specific beliefs.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

they're always going to be way off base and religious people are never going to take them seriously.

LOL! Right ... as if religious people are going to suddenly take atheists seriously if we stop "barking" about placating sky gods. No, Mr. McClellan, if we stop "barking," the religious in the world will simply forget that we even exist - which will undoubtedly embolden them to push their religious agendas onto the whole of society. "Well, hell's bells, Mr. President, since we're all Christians here in America, might as well put prayer back into our public schools, wouldn't you say? I haven't heard from those "barking" atheists in years!"

Oh no. While I'm sure there are millions of Christians (many of which are inclined toward theocratic fascism) would just LOVE for we atheists to just shut up and sit down, that just ain't gonna happen while I'm still drawing breath.

And make no mistake, dear readers, that what Mr. McClellan IS, in fact, saying with far more cloying words is that atheists ARE supposed to essentially shut up and return to the tradition of granting religion unquestioning respect and deference so that we will be "taken seriously." As if religious people will suddenly start considering atheism as being potentially correct if we just stop criticizing them. Sure, sure, and I have some balmy tropical land in Siberia to sell you, too.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

Any one of a number of reasons, but I know plenty of atheists who still actively participate in religious life because it makes them happy.

You're absolutely right. In fact, there are even pastors and priests who continue ministering even though they are actually atheists. BUT ... the difference is that they don't believe in all the ritualistic, supernatural mambo-jahambo that religion pushes. I wonder how many religious people - especially fundamentalists - would actually attend a meeting of atheists and simply enjoy the comeraderie. Yeah, probably ZERO. Instead, they would show up with their signs and protest the gathering - or - they would pick fights (debates) with the atheists present. I guess that's another difference ... and ... it makes one wonder who is really doing the most "barking" around here.

Or have you forgotten how quickly Christians in this country will start wailing like banshees about how horribly they're being persecuted and how there is this MASSIVE war on religion instigated by that "Muslim atheist" (Gingrich's own words) Obama whenever religion doesn't get the right to turn their bigotry into law.

Or hey, how about that Alabama supreme court judge that claimed atheists and non-Christians should NOT have any constitutional rights - and then thought he could appease atheist anger by amending his original assertion by saying uh oh, yeah, I meant that atheists and non-Christians shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment.

Oh! Well, if that's what you meant, then that's okay! NOT!

Let's not forget, too, George H.W. Bush's little rant to a reporter that atheists are not only unpatriotic and shouldn't have rights, Bush took it a step further by saying atheists shouldn't even have citizenship!

My point to all of this is to show you why religion isn't just a bunch of old biddies getting together for cookies and tea. Religion is a political force that MUST be opposed if ever we are to maintain an egalitarian society. If that means we atheists have to put ourselves out there and BARK a bit to maintain a balance, I'll be the first in line.

The only other option is to let the religious juggernaut steamroll everyone who doesn't put on their hobnailed boots and march to the right hymn.